Posted on 03/21/2008 1:43:24 PM PDT by cowboyway
Many heads turned in Ringgold Wednesday when they saw an African-American man dressed in a Confederate soldier's uniform, carrying a Confederate flag.
It wasn't a joke. H.K. Edgerton came to Ringgold to make a bold statement - he opposes city leader's removing the Confederate flag from the city's flag pole.
Edgerton says the Confederate flag is misunderstood, feared and hated because people are trying to be politically correct - which he says desecrates the honor and real meaning of the Civil War era emblem.
"I'm here because your town council climbed into bed with all the politically correct folks who are practicing social, cultural genocide here in the south land of America," Edgerton said.
Edgerton is marching against that cultural genocide as he calls it, and is getting a warm welcome from people in Ringgold who support his fight for the Confederate flag.
Jim Caldwell meet Edgerton carrying the flag and said "it's history, part of history and it don't need to be swept under the rug."
Edgerton is from Asheville, North Carolina, where he's also the immediate past president of the N.A.A.C.P. there. His visit to Ringgold marks the five-year anniversary of the same march he made from Asheville to Austin Texas - 20 miles a day, six days a week.
He says he has no respect for modern day civil rights activists who as he puts it, trash the Confederate flag.
"Just pointing to those scally-wags like Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, who climbed into bed with these folks to increase their coffers to continue tainting and disturbing history," Edgerton said.
Two years ago many people packed Ringgold's city hall to protest the move by city leaders to get rid of the Confederate flag. It flies no more on the town poles.
Edgerton says many people don't understand that black men, alongside whites, fought for the Confederacy and the principals it was founded on.
"So here I am, trying to bring an understanding that there was folks who look like me who earned a place of honor and dignity here under this flag. And this flag is just as much for folks who look like me as any white man in the south land of America," Edgerton said.
These atrocities were committed by soldiers under the American flag, not the Confederate flag. Should the American flag be banned as a 'symbol of hate'?
It should be given equal stature to the "Malcolm X" symbol because the purpose in displaying both, the interpretation of both and the potential offensiveness of both vary equal.
States rights was the cause, slavery was the occasion.
If the South seceded tomorrow because the north insisted on universal health care, would you foolishly say that the South didn't want people to have health care?
What should be given equal stature to the Malcolm X symbol?
the potential offensiveness
Please point out the section of the First Amendment that discusses offensiveness.
Used to see this guy a lot around here, walking while carrying his flag. I always thought it would be cool if I (a typical white person) put on a t-shirt with a picture of MLK on it, and walked with him for awhile.
“put on a t-shirt with a picture of MLK on it, and walked with him for awhile.”
I imagine H.K. would have welcomed the company. You might even have learned a thing or two.
States rights to enslave people was the cause and the occasion. It was the South's disgrace.
If the South seceded tomorrow because the north insisted on universal health care, would you foolishly say that the South didn't want people to have health care? "
If the South seceded tomorrow because the South insisted on universal health care, I would say that they seceded for universal health care and any other excuse was a transparent rationalization and propaganda to persuade fools to support it. I grew up in the south and my great grandfather fought for the South, presumably because of that nonsense. But it takes a special kind of stubborn denial and foolishness to believe in it after 150 years.
Dude, just read the sentence right before my last statement. It's yours, I quoted it.
Please point out the section of the First Amendment that discusses offensiveness.
Please point out where I said either symbol should treated contrary to the first amendment. I think neither have a place in public buildings, but that's up to the voters. I think neither have a place in school or the workplace, but that's up to the administrators and employers. But if some idiot wants to wear one on his shirt in public or put one on his car and deal with the friction, good luck with that.
Did you know the North had slaves, too? And Lincoln signed The Emancipation Proclamation kind of as an afterthought. He didn’t care one way or the other about slavery.
bttt
“I grew up in the south and my great grandfather fought for the South, presumably because of that nonsense. But it takes a special kind of stubborn denial and foolishness to believe in it after 150 years.”
Didn’t learn much did you?
States rights was the cause. Lincoln, and the north generally, didn't give a rats ass about the slaves. Hell, some northern states had laws on the books forbidding freemen to stay in their states longer than 30 days. And how about the New York riots where they targeted blacks and hung them from lamp post.
Slavery was the albatross around the necks of Southern independence but slavery wasn't the cause. States rights was the cause.
f the South seceded tomorrow because the South insisted on universal health care, I would say that they seceded for universal health care and any other excuse was a transparent rationalization and propaganda to persuade fools to support it.
That wasn't my question. Answer my question: If the South seceded tomorrow because the north insisted on universal health care, would you foolishly say that the South didn't want people to have health care?
I grew up in the south and my great grandfather fought for the South, presumably because of that nonsense.
It's too bad that your great grandfather isn't around to explain why he, and thousands of other Southerners, volunteered to fight for Southern Independence.
But it takes a special kind of stubborn denial and foolishness to believe in it after 150 years.
And it takes a special kind of stupidity and politically correct denial to embrace the left wing doctrine of revisionist history and biased propaganda.
Okay. You're smart and I'm a tard. Hows about explaining the American flag/Malcolm X connection cuz I can't see it.
Please point out where I said either symbol should treated contrary to the first amendment.
You brought up 'offensiveness'. That's usually the first step in any politically correct attempt to silence free speech.
But if some idiot wants to wear one on his shirt in public or put one on his car and deal with the friction, good luck with that.
Thank God that the idiots that support political correctness don't rule the roost.....yet. (With the help of so called conservatives like yourself, they may yet win.)
But you make a helluva point about 'friction'. It's a good thing that some people aren't afraid to 'deal with friction'. It makes it possible for those that prefer to cower in their safe havens to be free.
A public school education combined with an unwillingness for independent study sadly results in a lot of misinformed citizens, which is exactly what the libs want.
“A public school education combined with an unwillingness for independent study sadly results in a lot of misinformed citizens, which is exactly what the libs want.”
True but it goes deeper than that. My great great grandfather, who by the way, like many, many of his peers, never own a slave, fought for the South, my great grandfather raised my grandmother in his legacy, my grandmother in turn taught my mother who taught me. We can debate causes til we turn blue in the face, it’s a heart thing. Some get it, some don’t.
Dixie ping
State's rights to enslave people was the cause.
That wasn't my question.
Your question wasn't analogous or relevant so I gave you one that was.
It's too bad that your great grandfather isn't around to explain why he, and thousands of other Southerners, volunteered to fight for Southern Independence.
He lived in among a people blanketed by propaganda to cover their crimes against humanity. You have no excuse.
And it takes a special kind of stupidity and politically correct denial to embrace the left wing doctrine of revisionist history and biased propaganda.
You're right. I'm just too stupid and politically correct to embrace slavery.
You are correct, beckysueb.
In a response to a New York Tribune editorial he wrote a letter to Editor Andrew Greeley explaining why slaves were being freed . He stated,
” My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union”
I had this debate a few years ago here, and took the time then to research it and refute every piece of evidence the states right lobby could spew. I don’t have that kind of time now, and consider you all to be on the flat-earther level.
This site on slavery Myth Conceptions (including the States rights myth) claims that the only “State right” debated in congress leading up to succession was the right to own slaves.
http://chicora.org/myth_conceptions.htm
This site argues that there’s no such thing as “States rights”, only individual rights.
http://www.geocities.com/islavin2001/Reflections/StatesRightsMyth.html
Something else I recall from a few years ago was that the “States Rights” Confederacy made it against the law for a State to outlaw slavery. So they were only interested in the “States right” to enslave people, but it was illegal for a State to outlaw enslaving people.
Are you beginning to realize how STIPID the “States rights” argument is yet???
“Hows about explaining the American flag/Malcolm X connection cuz I can’t see it.”
Both are symbols of independence, freedom and pride in rebellion for many displaying them. They both represent a moderate to high degree of racism by many displaying them, not all. The Confederacy was a nation founded on the right to dehumanize and enslave blacks and Malcolm X was a white hating racist, so both are ethnically divisive. Both are a lousy way to make a clear point about freedom..
If you want to be stuck on stupid, fly’m high baby!
Then go away. You're just another one of those rabid Southern haters. You can almost see the spittle spewing from your pie hole as you type your hate.
This site on slavery Myth Conceptions (including the States rights myth) claims that the only “State right” debated in congress leading up to succession was the right to own slaves.
One more time: Slavery was the occasion. States rights was the cause.
What you fail to realize is that the War for Southern Independence would have occured even if the first slave had never been brought to American soil by the yankee slave traders. Read The South Under Siege by Frank Conner.
This site argues that there’s no such thing as “States rights”, only individual rights.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Are you beginning to realize how STIPID the “States rights” argument is yet???
Are you beginning to realize how stupid you are?
“You brought up ‘offensiveness’. That’s usually the first step in any politically correct attempt to silence free speech.”
True, but an infinite number of things can be called offensive, without justifying their proponents to accuse others of violating their First Amendment rights.
“With the help of so called conservatives like yourself”
Show me one thing I’ve said here that’s inconsistent with conservatism. You’re just making an bigger fool of yourself.
From your post#4:
"the interpretation of both and the potential offensiveness of both vary equal."
Conservatives don't use 'offensiveness' or political correctness to try to leverage advantage in debate.
That's a liberal tactic.
“Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Again, the euphemism “state’s rights” taken from the 10th Amendment is nothing more than an attempt at prohibiting federal interference with individual rights or their administration through state law. It does not literally give states “rights”. It just restricts federal authority.
Are you arguing that it should have been within a “state’s right” to enslave people? If not, then restrictions on slavery were never a “states right” issue as Confederate propagandist claimed anyway!
And I’m still waiting on your explanation of how the Confederacy could have succeeded for “states rights” reasons and then made it illegal for states to have the right to outlaw the one right that they overwhelmingly argued for.
“Conservatives don’t use ‘offensiveness’ or political correctness to try to leverage advantage in debate. That’s a liberal tactic.”
It’s libertarians, not conservatives, that abstain from using the word “offensive”. There are a number of things conservatives promote as offensive in order to promote good behavior - bad language, racsim, America bashing, Gay sex (at least male gay sex) and general rudeness fist come to mind. Wearing the Confederate flag and the Malcolm X symbol potentially fall into a couple of those categories.
From Amendment X:
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Read 'respectively'. Like the Second, the Tenth is crystal clear.
Furthermore, 'states rights' is not a 'euphemism'. States rights is directly from the 'Bill of Rights' of which the Tenth Amendment is an integral part.
Are you arguing that it should have been within a “state’s right” to enslave people?
The argument is about the ability of the people of a state to choose their own destiny.
And I’m still waiting on your explanation of how the Confederacy could have succeeded for “states rights” reasons and then made it illegal for states to have the right to outlaw the one right that they overwhelmingly argued for.
When did that happen?
BTW, for a guy that has no time for this stuff you're sure spending a lot of time on this stuff.
Yes, and it says exactly what I just told you, prohibiting the federal government from interfering with "powers not delegated" to them that can be delegated to states by the people who as individuals are the only entities that have "rights".
Neither the term “state rights” nor the literal concept of a states having a rights appears in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence (as my previous link showed). It is not part of any philosophical foundation for our government that I'm aware of, but it happens to be essential to the foundation of communism. ;^)
Rights belong to people and only to people. They are an integral part of what is required for us to act according to our nature, presumably God given. They do not belong to groups or to collectives of any kind. They do not require the services of another as would a "right" to healthcare for instance. They are contracts between free men that can not be bestowed upon entities such as animals that have no ability (or at least no potential ability in general) to respect the rights of others. That's the fundamental nature of rights.
There is absolutely NO right of a collective such as a state, especially one to enslave an innocent man simply because as you say, the 10th amendment recognizes the "ability of the people of a state to choose their own destiny" by majority vote. Bullsh~t!
The Second Amendment used the term "right" explicitly regarding individuals. The tenth amendment used the turn "powers not delegated" to apply to the States. Therefore, the states have only “delegated” authority from the people (who do have rights) and as long as it does not conflict with the authority the people delegated to the federal government through the Constitution.
”When did that happen?”
It took almost 20 seconds to google, “’confederate constitution’ ‘outlaw slavery’". The second document returned compares the US and CSA constitution side by side, article by article, section by section by section. This is the summary:
”SUMMARY: Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.You're right on one thing though... I have no time for this. I'm done.States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?
As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (6/1/3), the "Commerce" clause (1/8/3) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (1/8/18). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."
As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Indeed, CSA constitution seems to barely stop short of making owning slaves mandatory. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of future anti-slave law or policy will be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" until the cows come home, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.
In the end, however, many of the most interesting changes introduced in the CSA constitution have nothing to do with federalism or slavery at all. The President's term limit and line-item veto, along with the various fiscal restraints, and the ability of cabinet members to answer questions on the floor of Congress are all innovative, neutral ideals whose merits may still be worth pondering today.”
Forgot the link: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
“Are you beginning to realize how STIPID the “States rights” argument is yet???”
I’m guessing you mean “stupid”? And the answer is Nope.
This little amendment just happens to blow your specious argument totally out of the water as far as the “myth” of states rights. So too convenient for it to be ignored.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/news/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=505522
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXD/is_2006_May_18/ai_n16373610
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DB143EF937A15751C0A96E948260
http://www.psychcrime.org/articles/arizonadecision.htm
That is so cool! You don’t have to understand the constitution. You can just read headlines to identify constitutional principles. Look, there really is a “separation of church and state” clause in the Constitution. The NY Times says a judge just ruled it so: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28tue1.html
So after being shown how rights are unique to individuals, you send me 4 links to where reporters use the term “states rights” as shorthand for the non-federal “authority delegated” to states by the people for what? To insist that rights literally do rest with states? Especially the right to enslave people by majority vote? Hey, I’m glad you’re on our side defending against the tyranny of the left! ;^)
Complete nonsense. He wrote the proclamation, how could he sign it 'as an afterthought'? "Hmmm...let's see... January 1st...had breakfast, check...greeted the people, check...wasn't there something else I was going to do today? Oh yeah! Now where did I put that emancipation thing...."
Obviously.
Most southron fanatics will equate opposition to the southern rebellion with liberalism. In their eyes, Reagan must have been a commie.
A state's right to do what? Other presidents had told states they couldn't perform a certain act. Other presidents had enacted tariffs. And states hadn't seceded. But Lincoln was the first president elected on a platform determined to limit slavery. And the South seceded because of it. The south seceded because of what they saw as a threat to their institution of slavery.
And what makes you think that the power to secede unilaterally is not a power prohibited to the states?
Greeley's editorial, "The Prayer of Twenty Millions" was an attack on Lincoln and his administration for not more forcefully going after slavery as the root cause of the war, for not more vigorously enforcing the Confiscation Acts, and for failing to fight the south more effectively, saying "The Rebels from the first have been eager to confiscate, imprison, scourge and kill: we have fought wolves with the devices of sheep."
And here's Lincoln's reply in full:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don't believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be error; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln
Have you contracted dyslexia? You seem to keep reading "rights" when the text says "powers."
Governments don't have rights. Governments have powers. People have rights.
If he wasn’t from the south he had to be...;’}
Every one of those links was there for a reason: to illustrate to you that the SCOTUS has heard numerous cases pertaining to STATES RIGHTS.
If you still maintain that states rights is a 'euphemism' falsely gleaned from the 10th Amendment, then you should sally forth to the justice department and straighten out the justices quick before they make another horrendous error.
“Hows about explaining the American flag/Malcolm X connection cuz I can’t see it.”
You responded:
They both represent a moderate to high degree of racism by many displaying them
Both are a lousy way to make a clear point about freedom.
So, you're saying that the American flag is a symbol of racism and a lousy way to make a point clear?
If you want to be stuck on stupid, fly’m high baby!
You're an idiot.
Amendment X is found in the Bill of Rights.
Also, Google 'states rights supreme court'. You'll find hundreds of 'states rights' cases.
States rights and states powers have become synonymous through the frequent and traditional usage of the former and the obvious tie to the latter.
People have rights.
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Well, now you have a conundrum. The 10th Amendment clearly states that people have 'powers'.
Okay. Here's the first hit that comes up:
The phrase states' rights (and all variants of the words and the phrase) does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments -- rather the word rights is exclusively associated within the Constitution with the phrase the people , while the word powers is extensively and exclusively associated with government entities such as Congress or states. Therefore, the phrase states' powers is more technically consistent with the terminology of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, with the phrase States' rights popularized by repeated usage.Well, now you have a conundrum. The 10th Amendment clearly states that people have 'powers'.
No conundrum at all. People have rights AND powers. Governments only have powers.
Given that the fundamental principle that the source of our rights is our Creator, you're actually making a "divine right of kings" argument, saying that God also ordains our government and endows it with rights. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that this is not the case, and that to secure the rights endowed by God, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed"
Find a single decision issued by the court that uses that phrase. Sloppy headline writing or familiar usage doesn't count.
See post #20.
Irrelevant. Lincoln's purpose, first and foremost, was to preserve the Union. That doesn't mean that the Emancipation Proclamation was an 'afterthought'. He could have defeated the Southern rebellion without freeing the slaves, but knew that he could further the cause of the war by removing slavery as a support for the confederate cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.